When it comes to animal research there are various constraints we need to keep in mind. One of them is animal rights. A lot of animal rights group are against this. Recently there are few news about extremist groups who are following and destroying animal research work. To avoid harassment researchers and the animal activist groups should have good communication. Talking about animal research is one way to start that. What other ways can help this situation?
I have two answers for this discussion post: first, I personally feel that because scientists have been testing on animal models for decades, there should be enough data to predict how the body will react to certain diseases based on the medicines being used. I feel that there has been too much money invested into research and industry for cures to not have been solved at this point. I probably would have been okay with animal testing if it were new and temporary being that unfortunately, part of life is making sacrifices in order to save others. At this day in age, too many innocent animals have been abused, tortured, and terrorized for basically nothing. Second, one way to communicate with animal activists is to have them encourage people who have disorders or diseases to donate their bodies to science. With this being done, there is consent and sufficient data can be collected opposed to using a model similar to the human body. Another alternative could be to encourage them to educate people on their diet. The average disease is caused by unhealthy eating habits. If people were to eat more consciously, there would be a less need to do research seeing how the numbers would decrease overtime.
I would have to disagree on your point on not using the animal with the first on there being too much investment in the area of research in industry that would be a substitute for animal testing. New products, materials, and combination devices are created each year with a new level of scrutiny being placed of the safety and efficacy of the product. I do agree there is probably too many animal studies that are not necessary, but the regulations to run a study have helped limit the mundane studies. There are many animal models that are important for replication of the human condition, such as the caprine or ovine model, that should be picked carefully to properly assess the necessary property of the medical device related to the study. The reason why a cadaveric study can't be used is that the cells are no longer living; there are many times a researcher is looking at the way cells interact or grow into the implant where a cadaver that has been properly prepared has no ability to prove the devices efficacy. The cadaver can be used for mechanical testing or other material characterizations, but it can't provide the full battery of tests that are needed for biocompatibility. Finally, there are many elective surgeries that can be reduced by a healthier patient, but there are a large number of cases that account for trauma and underlying conditions (such as cancerous tumors or deformity) that need innovative ways to treat a person while ensuring they have the highest quality of life that can't be fixed by a healthier lifestyle.
When it comes to animal research there are various constraints we need to keep in mind. One of them is animal rights. A lot of animal rights group are against this. Recently there are few news about extremist groups who are following and destroying animal research work. To avoid harassment researchers and the animal activist groups should have good communication. Talking about animal research is one way to start that. What other ways can help this situation?
I think communication and clarity of experimentation is the best way to help the discussion between medical device companies and animal rights groups. Realistically, Animal testing is necessary for the success and approval of certain medical devices. I am currently working on a project that is in the early phases of product development and it requires an animal study to be submitted to show the efficacy of the product so that eventually it can be approved for human use. The pre-clinical department where I work takes this trial with the upmost level of respect and are abiding to every government guideline that corresponds to animal testing. I think having internal and external auditors for pre-clinical studies can help improve transparency with animal rights groups to assure them that protocols are in place to care for the animals before and during the study. This might help quell some activists who feel that companies are violating certain guidelines.
Thanks,
Matt
Animal testing is an unfortunate reality for product assessments. The pain and suffering animals endure comes attached to the advancements and research gained. Opposing arguments against animal testing for preclinical research is still om going. However, researchers sometimes get harassed by the anti-animal testing activists’ groups. Through dialogue and mutual understanding, the conflict could be mitigated. The researchers try to minimize animal testing as much as possible. FDA also approves simulation studies instead of preclinical study in certain cases nowadays. So, we can hope this unfortunate reality can be minimized.
